Federal court upholds FCC ban on exclusive cable deals

In a victory for consumers and telco video providers, an appeals court has …

An appeals court decided to back consumers on Tuesday, unanimously upholding a Federal Communications Commission order banning exclusive cable video contracts in apartment buildings and other multiple dwelling units (MDUs).

The agency acted well within the bounds of the law, ruled the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court even smiled on applying the new regulations to current cable/realtor deals, noting that the FCC "balanced benefits against harms and expressly determined that applying the rule to existing contracts was worth its costs." The call is also a victory for telcos like AT&T and Verizon, both of which pushed hard for the FCC to make its decision.

Changing course

The Commission moved on this issue on the last day of October in 2007, invoking Section 628 of the Communications Act, which prohibits cable companies from pursuing deals that have "the purpose or effect of hindering significantly or preventing their competitors from providing satellite cable programming or satellite broadcast programming to subscribers or consumers." That decision reversed a 2003 call on the question which decided that the trade-offs between the "pro-competitive and anti-competitive effects" of exclusive contracts were too close to call.

By 2007, however, the agency had reached a new consensus on the matter, its order noting that by then, thirty percent of Americans lived in MDUs, many of them minorities. Restricting an apartment building's access to one cable provider foreclosed the expansion of fiber and "triple play" (phone, video, Internet) services in many areas, the Commission observed. "Exclusivity clauses deny MDU residents the benefits of increased competition, including lower prices and the availability of more channels with more diverse content."

Two days earlier, then FCC Chair Kevin Martin had tipped reporters that the agency would take this step. "Should Martin & Co. actually strike down existing contracts, expect speedy litigation from the cable operators," Ars' Nate Anderson predicted at the time.

And sure enough, they did, suing the FCC in appellate court. The National Cable and Telecommunications Association and several real estate groups offered two very technical arguments against the Commission's decision.

Abuse of market power

First, the plaintiffs contended that when Congress wrote Section 628, they were not worried about barriers to expanded service choice, but with practices that prevented consumers from getting certain kinds of programming. The legal arena of conflict on lawmakers' minds was the endless battle between content providers and cable companies, NCTA et al contended, not roadblocks to service in general.

The DC Court rejected this argument in a few pages, noting that nothing in the literal text of Section 628 prevented the FCC from making its ruling. And although NCTA pointed to "considerable evidence that Congress was specifically concerned with unfair dealing over programming," the judges explained, "they offer no evidence from the legislative record to show that Congress chose its language so as to limit the Commission solely to that particular abuse of market power."

Second, the NCTA lawsuit invoked an old standby—that the FCC had not properly explained why it had changed its position on exclusive MDU contracts, thus running afoul of the Administrative Procedures Act's prohibition against "arbitrary and capricious" decision making among government agencies. But the DC Circuit noted that the FCC had not changed its policy on exclusive contracts in 2003 in large part because of insufficient data on the question. The Commission's perspective on this issue was clearly in flux.

And, in an interesting tangent, the judges bowed to the Supreme Court's recent reversal of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals strikedown of the FCC's fine against CBS for the famous Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction of 2004. The Third Circuit had agreed with CBS that the Commission's new regulations against "fleeting images" were arbitrary and capricious.

Not so, declared the Supremes. The agency "need not demonstrate to a court’s satisfaction that the reasons for the new policy are better than the reasons for the old one," the high court ruled; "it suffices that the new policy is permissible under the statute, that there are good reasons for it, and that the agency believes it to be better." (The judges added italics here.)

The DC Circuit cited this sentence in upholding the FCC's order against exclusive MDU deals.

Assuming this case doesn't go any further up the judicial ladder, the Commission's ban on exclusive apartment contracts for cable service is now a done deal. But it doesn't affect all MDU-like dwellings, among them "time share units, academic campuses and dormitories, military bases, hotels, rooming houses, jails, prisons, halfway houses, hospitals, nursing and other assisted living places, and other group quarters characterized by institutional living, high transience and, in some cases, a high need for security," the order noted. So if you are reading this story in a maximum security lock down, you'll still have to take whatever video service they give you.

About four months after its decision on MDUs, the agency extended the exclusivity ban to ISPs as well.

"There is no reason that consumers living in apartment buildings should be locked into one service provider," the FCC's Martin declared shortly after the move. "Competition is ultimately the best protector of the consumer's interest."

Originally posted by Wind197:Does this mean apartments can't include cable services in the cost of rent?

Also, I hope I can finally get away the cable service I've been stuck with.

Does this mean (or did it ever) that my landlord who insists i'm not allowed to put up a sattelite dish can finally be told to suck it? IIRC, there was some kind of FCC law that states you must be allowed to recieve whatever transmissions you wish? I seem to remember this one being invoked against overbearing HOA's a lot.

Right now, the place is wired for cable, but we only have one cable provider, which is overpriced as all getout.. the dish would be much more agreeable.

Originally posted by Wind197:Does this mean apartments can't include cable services in the cost of rent?

Also, I hope I can finally get away the cable service I've been stuck with.

If you don't use the service they can't include it, but it really depends on the lease agreement/contract you signed for the dwelling. Some of them are written in such a way as to make it payable even if you don't use it because it was provided as a "feature" of the dwelling and if you leased that dwelling then thats included.

They actually can restrict satellite dishes if they hang over your balcony. It basically makes the whole thing useless since it's almost impossible to keep the whole thing with in your balcony, since they usually get mounted on the balcony itself. Although I now see that they can't prohibit you from putting them on balconies. So now I can't even tell what exactly I can/can't do.

Does this mean (or did it ever) that my landlord who insists i'm not allowed to put up a sattelite dish can finally be told to suck it?

I have several pieces of rental property, one is a 12 unit apartment situation with the rest single dwelling, and i've encountered this very request. Your landlord is correct if he doesn't allow you to put up a dish. Your landlord actually owns the property, he/she is just letting you use it for a while. The landlord is well within his/her rights to allow or prohibit additions, structures, construction, improvements, etc...if he/she so wishes. The service might be available, but the landlord doesn't have to let you install your own dish if he/she doesn't want to, and the argument that you are being prohibited from using another service doesn't fly either. I can just about promise you that the ownership rights of the landlord are outlined in your rental or lease agreement someplace if even by exclusion in the sense that your not owning but leasing or renting. On the other hand, if you could talk the landlord into letting you install a dish but that service was made available to other's dwelling in the same apartment complex in different apartments then you would have an argument that the service is being denied. For one person its not a "service" but instead is a choice, but for more then one it is a "service".

I had a situation a few years ago, one guy renting an apartment wanted to put up a DirectTV dish, small and not noticible. The problem was that local zoning ordinances did not allow roof mounts like he wanted to do. And, since its only a 12 unit situation I made a deal with him that if he could get three other occupants to go along with him that I would let him put it at the SW corner of the parking area on a pole mount and i'd pay for the install for multiple apartments being wired. I did this because I could see a sort of "value added" aspect to it in terms of occupant attraction. So if you can get more occupants to go along with you and can present it correctly to the landlord you might be able to get it done.

Another thing you might try, if its a small dish like for DirectTV, is to place it on your balcony if you have one. But you have to hide it from view. Also check local ordinances, some don't allow things like this no matter where you put it for an individual but will allow it if more then a certain number are served by having it.

Originally posted by Jack_o:I have several pieces of rental property, one is a 12 unit apartment situation with the rest single dwelling, and i've encountered this very request. Your landlord is correct if he doesn't allow you to put up a dish.

By 2007, however, the agency had reached a new consensus on the matter, its order noting that by then, thirty percent of Americans lived in MDUs, many of them minorities.

Why are minorities even brought up? Is it ok to screw people as long as their skin isn't brown?

O_o that's not what they said. Actually quite the opposite, from the way I read it, the exclusivity deals screw over minorities because a lot of them live in MDU's.

Actually I read this a different way: yes, I think the judges were talking in FAVOUR of minorities, not AGAINST them, but not because they're minorities. Although the text doesn't say this, I think they were basically assuming that these were people with less financial resources, therefore more prone to suffering from inflated prices and exclusivity deals.

Originally posted by Jackattak:On the "minorities" issue, until the government stops seeing HUMANS as "minorities" there will always be racism.

Humans are all the most powerful creatures on Earth, therefore no human shall ever be charged with being a "minority". We are all in complete control of our own destinies.

/soapbox

The government doesn't see them as "minorities", they see them as members of a diverse class of people requiring/needing protections under law or policy in some way to ensure they are treated fairly and equal. The word "minorities" is used to describe that collective group of people, not only ones with a certain color skin or origin, or gender, or age, or...etc...., that need or require such protections and consideration to ensure they are treated the same as everyone else and aforded the same protections, advantages, and rights as others enjoy. These are called 'protected classes' and collectively refered to as 'minority' because their groups break down to be less then a certain precentage of the entire population that requres such protections. They aren't "minority" because of the color of their skin or anything like that. Thats what the article is talking about, that those should enjoy the same protections and advantages from a policy, law, and decisions as everyone else. The fact that a lot of people who live in such places as the article describes fall into these protected classes just happens to be that it turns out that way.

Its others who would prey on them because of their color, origin, gender, etc...that are the problem and the reason consideration is given to minorities by the government in law and policy and decision making. Its not intended to single them out, its intended to protect them from such abuses because of the other fools who would exploit them or take advantage of them. Racism will not stop until there are no more racists.

Does this mean (or did it ever) that my landlord who insists i'm not allowed to put up a sattelite dish can finally be told to suck it?

I have several pieces of rental property, one is a 12 unit apartment situation with the rest single dwelling, and i've encountered this very request. Your landlord is correct if he doesn't allow you to put up a dish. Your landlord actually owns the property, he/she is just letting you use it for a while. The landlord is well within his/her rights to allow or prohibit additions, structures, construction, improvements, etc...if he/she so wishes. The service might be available, but the landlord doesn't have to let you install your own dish if he/she doesn't want to, and the argument that you are being prohibited from using another service doesn't fly either. I can just about promise you that the ownership rights of the landlord are outlined in your rental or lease agreement someplace if even by exclusion in the sense that your not owning but leasing or renting. On the other hand, if you could talk the landlord into letting you install a dish but that service was made available to other's dwelling in the same apartment complex in different apartments then you would have an argument that the service is being denied. For one person its not a "service" but instead is a choice, but for more then one it is a "service".

I had a situation a few years ago, one guy renting an apartment wanted to put up a DirectTV dish, small and not noticible. The problem was that local zoning ordinances did not allow roof mounts like he wanted to do. And, since its only a 12 unit situation I made a deal with him that if he could get three other occupants to go along with him that I would let him put it at the SW corner of the parking area on a pole mount and i'd pay for the install for multiple apartments being wired. I did this because I could see a sort of "value added" aspect to it in terms of occupant attraction. So if you can get more occupants to go along with you and can present it correctly to the landlord you might be able to get it done.

Another thing you might try, if its a small dish like for DirectTV, is to place it on your balcony if you have one. But you have to hide it from view. Also check local ordinances, some don't allow things like this no matter where you put it for an individual but will allow it if more then a certain number are served by having it.

There's nothing in the lease about satellite dishes, and if there was, I wouldn't have rented there. And you bet your ass i'd have referred them to the FCC, because other people are being needlessly screwed over.

I'm a touch reluctant to invoke the law on this one, I mean they're nice people, they've been nothing but classy when I've had trouble, but it's getting ridiculous. I went up and asked her the other day, and asked "Hey, umm.. wtf?" And she said "Well that would set a precedent and then everyone would want them". Well no shit, they want ridiculous prices for cable here, and you won't let us deal with the competition!

Seeing as how the lease defines a small area out next to your doors (for outdoor BBQs and whatnot), this seems like it would fit within the description of being within an area for your own personal use.

Also:The landlord is well within his/her rights to allow or prohibit additions, structures, construction, improvements, etc...if he/she so wishes.The FCC rules disagree with you, and them being federal, trump your rights to make your tenants live with overpriced crap.

Originally posted by Jack_o:<snipped to conserve space and stay OT>Its others who would prey on them because of their color, origin, gender, etc...that are the problem and the reason consideration is given to minorities by the government in law and policy and decision making. Its not intended to single them out, its intended to protect them from such abuses because of the other fools who would exploit them or take advantage of them. Racism will not stop until there are no more racists.

I didn't want to take this thread too far OT but I see what you're saying and I appreciate the thorough explanation. Thanks!

The satellite dish forums (DBSTalk) get the dish-in-an-apartment situation frequently. I would definitely say it has to be a non-permanent solution (concrete in a bucket with a pole sticking out), preferably on a second floor balcony where no one can see it or touch it.

Does this mean (or did it ever) that my landlord who insists i'm not allowed to put up a sattelite dish can finally be told to suck it?

I have several pieces of rental property, one is a 12 unit apartment situation with the rest single dwelling, and i've encountered this very request. Your landlord is correct if he doesn't allow you to put up a dish. Your landlord actually owns the property, he/she is just letting you use it for a while. The landlord is well within his/her rights to allow or prohibit additions, structures, construction, improvements, etc...if he/she so wishes. The service might be available, but the landlord doesn't have to let you install your own dish if he/she doesn't want to, and the argument that you are being prohibited from using another service doesn't fly either. I can just about promise you that the ownership rights of the landlord are outlined in your rental or lease agreement someplace if even by exclusion in the sense that your not owning but leasing or renting. On the other hand, if you could talk the landlord into letting you install a dish but that service was made available to other's dwelling in the same apartment complex in different apartments then you would have an argument that the service is being denied. For one person its not a "service" but instead is a choice, but for more then one it is a "service".

I had a situation a few years ago, one guy renting an apartment wanted to put up a DirectTV dish, small and not noticible. The problem was that local zoning ordinances did not allow roof mounts like he wanted to do. And, since its only a 12 unit situation I made a deal with him that if he could get three other occupants to go along with him that I would let him put it at the SW corner of the parking area on a pole mount and i'd pay for the install for multiple apartments being wired. I did this because I could see a sort of "value added" aspect to it in terms of occupant attraction. So if you can get more occupants to go along with you and can present it correctly to the landlord you might be able to get it done.

Another thing you might try, if its a small dish like for DirectTV, is to place it on your balcony if you have one. But you have to hide it from view. Also check local ordinances, some don't allow things like this no matter where you put it for an individual but will allow it if more then a certain number are served by having it.

There's nothing in the lease about satellite dishes, and if there was, I wouldn't have rented there. And you bet your ass i'd have referred them to the FCC, because other people are being needlessly screwed over.

I'm a touch reluctant to invoke the law on this one, I mean they're nice people, they've been nothing but classy when I've had trouble, but it's getting ridiculous. I went up and asked her the other day, and asked "Hey, umm.. wtf?" And she said "Well that would set a precedent and then everyone would want them". Well no shit, they want ridiculous prices for cable here, and you won't let us deal with the competition!

Seeing as how the lease defines a small area out next to your doors (for outdoor BBQs and whatnot), this seems like it would fit within the description of being within an area for your own personal use.

Also:The landlord is well within his/her rights to allow or prohibit additions, structures, construction, improvements, etc...if he/she so wishes.The FCC rules disagree with you, and them being federal, trump your rights to make your tenants live with overpriced crap.

You can do it so long as you do not modify the landlords property, which is unlikely since you need a place to place the dish and a way to get the signal into your residence. The ruling is really to help people in condo's and with stupid HOA covenants.

Originally posted by afidel:You can do it so long as you do not modify the landlords property, which is unlikely since you need a place to place the dish and a way to get the signal into your residence. The ruling is really to help people in condo's and with stupid HOA covenants.

I place it on the reserved spot on my porch, using the concrete-bucket method. Run the cable in the window not less than a foot away. Problem solved.

the only thing that a landlord is allowed to forbid is making changes to the existing structure. If you have a balcony, he cannot, even by lease, forbid you from putting a dish out on it.(law permitting) I had a friend whose landlord wouldnt allow dishes, so he built a 5 foot mast out of 2x4s that had two halves. It then bolted together around the railing. Never bolted anything to the actual patio. His landlord couldnt say anything about it. It looked ugly as hell, but thats what happens when you refuse to work with people and try to work against them.

Does this mean (or did it ever) that my landlord who insists i'm not allowed to put up a sattelite dish can finally be told to suck it?

I have several pieces of rental property, one is a 12 unit apartment situation with the rest single dwelling, and i've encountered this very request. Your landlord is correct if he doesn't allow you to put up a dish. Your landlord actually owns the property, he/she is just letting you use it for a while. The landlord is well within his/her rights to allow or prohibit additions, structures, construction, improvements, etc...if he/she so wishes. The service might be available, but the landlord doesn't have to let you install your own dish if he/she doesn't want to, and the argument that you are being prohibited from using another service doesn't fly either. I can just about promise you that the ownership rights of the landlord are outlined in your rental or lease agreement someplace if even by exclusion in the sense that your not owning but leasing or renting. On the other hand, if you could talk the landlord into letting you install a dish but that service was made available to other's dwelling in the same apartment complex in different apartments then you would have an argument that the service is being denied. For one person its not a "service" but instead is a choice, but for more then one it is a "service".

I had a situation a few years ago, one guy renting an apartment wanted to put up a DirectTV dish, small and not noticible. The problem was that local zoning ordinances did not allow roof mounts like he wanted to do. And, since its only a 12 unit situation I made a deal with him that if he could get three other occupants to go along with him that I would let him put it at the SW corner of the parking area on a pole mount and i'd pay for the install for multiple apartments being wired. I did this because I could see a sort of "value added" aspect to it in terms of occupant attraction. So if you can get more occupants to go along with you and can present it correctly to the landlord you might be able to get it done.

Another thing you might try, if its a small dish like for DirectTV, is to place it on your balcony if you have one. But you have to hide it from view. Also check local ordinances, some don't allow things like this no matter where you put it for an individual but will allow it if more then a certain number are served by having it.

There's nothing in the lease about satellite dishes, and if there was, I wouldn't have rented there. And you bet your ass i'd have referred them to the FCC, because other people are being needlessly screwed over.

I'm a touch reluctant to invoke the law on this one, I mean they're nice people, they've been nothing but classy when I've had trouble, but it's getting ridiculous. I went up and asked her the other day, and asked "Hey, umm.. wtf?" And she said "Well that would set a precedent and then everyone would want them". Well no shit, they want ridiculous prices for cable here, and you won't let us deal with the competition!

Seeing as how the lease defines a small area out next to your doors (for outdoor BBQs and whatnot), this seems like it would fit within the description of being within an area for your own personal use.

Also:The landlord is well within his/her rights to allow or prohibit additions, structures, construction, improvements, etc...if he/she so wishes.The FCC rules disagree with you, and them being federal, trump your rights to make your tenants live with overpriced crap.

Hmmm, not really. The FCC ruling only means that there can't be an exclusive contract with cable companies. Its doesn't say that landlords have to supply a service at all or even allow a service if there is any modifications made in the process by a tennants actions.

Placing it on the balcony out of sight is most always a win, but you also need to check local ordinances too because some forbid this from happening if there isn't a certain amount of clearance around it (to help avoid trips and falls especially on upstairs balconies, or as the oridinace puts it "hinder emergency rescue attempts" - in case of fire I guess.). Where i'm at its no problem (can't go on the roof though).

Although renters think they have all these rights and stuff, and they do, if the landlord allows something that could be a nuisance, or eye sore, or in some way that could be hazardous, they can be held legally liable as well. For example, where I live if a kid in the neighborhood climbs your fence and falls and gets hurts your legally liable.

But in the town that butts up against mine its forbidden even on the balcony but it does allow for a 'community' installation and requires the landlord of apartment complexes to "provide space" for it but there has to be more then one tennant using it and its restricted also depending on the number of units in the complex, they also have to be out of view of the general public passing by. And if self installed it also has to be inspected by a certified electrician.

Believe me, working with the landlord is the best way to go. Most likely if you keep it out of sight and out of mind no one will ever say anything about it.

I have to side with the cable companies on this. The cable companies have existing contracts with apartment owners. Some of those contracts include clauses preventing the apartment owner from using competing cable services. There is nothing wrong with such contracts, and they usually provide a significant price break compared with open competition contracts. No apartment owner was forced to sign such contracts. If prospective renters dislike the chosen cable company, they can rent elsewhere.

Now, the US government (FCC) comes along and says that many of those contracts are void. The FCC has no good reason for voiding the contracts. The outcome of the FCC's rule change is that cable choice wins out over price. Soon, everyone who lives in an apartment building that had an exclusive cable contract will get more cable options, but every one of those options will be costlier. Somehow I doubt that the government cares about the increased cable costs for those poor minorities mentioned in the court documents.

Originally posted by Wind197:Does this mean apartments can't include cable services in the cost of rent?

Also, I hope I can finally get away the cable service I've been stuck with.

Does this mean (or did it ever) that my landlord who insists i'm not allowed to put up a sattelite dish can finally be told to suck it? IIRC, there was some kind of FCC law that states you must be allowed to recieve whatever transmissions you wish? I seem to remember this one being invoked against overbearing HOA's a lot.

Right now, the place is wired for cable, but we only have one cable provider, which is overpriced as all getout.. the dish would be much more agreeable.

Originally posted by Jack_o:Hmmm, not really. The FCC ruling only means that there can't be an exclusive contract with cable companies. Its doesn't say that landlords have to supply a service at all or even allow a service if there is any modifications made in the process by a tennants actions.

Placing it on the balcony out of sight is most always a win, but you also need to check local ordinances too because some forbid this from happening if there isn't a certain amount of clearance around it (to help avoid trips and falls especially on upstairs balconies, or as the oridinace puts it "hinder emergency rescue attempts" - in case of fire I guess.). Where i'm at its no problem (can't go on the roof though).

Although renters think they have all these rights and stuff, and they do, if the landlord allows something that could be a nuisance, or eye sore, or in some way that could be hazardous, they can be held legally liable as well. For example, where I live if a kid in the neighborhood climbs your fence and falls and gets hurts your legally liable.

But in the town that butts up against mine its forbidden even on the balcony but it does allow for a 'community' installation and requires the landlord of apartment complexes to "provide space" for it but there has to be more then one tennant using it and its restricted also depending on the number of units in the complex, they also have to be out of view of the general public passing by. And if self installed it also has to be inspected by a certified electrician.

Believe me, working with the landlord is the best way to go. Most likely if you keep it out of sight and out of mind no one will ever say anything about it.

I'm a ham operator from way back and remember reading about very similar issues concerning radio antennae and HOA rules that conflict with FCC mandates.

THIS ruling doesn't have anything to do with a landlord not allowing a tenant to have a satellite dish directly. However, someone kindly linked to the FCC mandate (correct word?) that prohibits landlords, laws, ordinances, HOA policies, etc., from restricting a tenant's right to add a dish in their exclusive-use area, e.g. patio, porch, and so on.

For the town that has a law against a dish on a renter's balcony, they may have a legal battle on their hands if anyone decides to throw that particular FCC ruling in their faces. Being ignorant of what the FCC has put into law is really no excuse.

someone kindly linked to the FCC mandate (correct word?) that prohibits landlords, laws, ordinances, HOA policies, etc., from restricting a tenant's right to add a dish in their exclusive-use area, e.g. patio, porch, and so on.

It's already been linked TWICE in this few posts. I'll quote it for you to save you the clicks:

quote:

The rule (47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000) has been in effect since October 1996, and it prohibits restrictions that impair the installation, maintenance or use of antennas used to receive video programming. The rule applies to video antennas including direct-to-home satellite dishes that are less than one meter (39.37") in diameter (or of any size in Alaska), TV antennas, and wireless cable antennas. The rule prohibits most restrictions that: (1) unreasonably delay or prevent installation, maintenance or use; (2) unreasonably increase the cost of installation, maintenance or use; or (3) preclude reception of an acceptable quality signal.

Effective January 22, 1999, the Commission amended the rule so that it also applies to rental property where the renter has an exclusive use area, such as a balcony or patio.

Originally posted by Jackattak:I don't know where this ban is supposed to be taking place, but if anyone knows of any cable internet competitors in Downtown Portland, OR please let me know so I can shutdown Comcast.

Why? I know their customer service sucks, but the price is decent and the speed recently has been good. Their cap of 200 GB per month is very reasonable. I torrent all kinds of stuff all the time and I don't get slowed down at all ever now.

I would rather have no cap but I would rather have no throttling more. I guess people just like hating on Comcast like they hate on Micheal Bay too.

You could check if Verizon does downtown Portland. I know that they do the outlying areas.

I am glad to hear that they banned this practice though. I would hate to be forced into one ISP provider if I lived in a huge apartment building. The idea is just against the America way of business.

Originally posted by tetrault:I have to side with the cable companies on this. The cable companies have existing contracts with apartment owners. Some of those contracts include clauses preventing the apartment owner from using competing cable services. There is nothing wrong with such contracts, and they usually provide a significant price break compared with open competition contracts. No apartment owner was forced to sign such contracts. If prospective renters dislike the chosen cable company, they can rent elsewhere.

Now, the US government (FCC) comes along and says that many of those contracts are void. The FCC has no good reason for voiding the contracts. The outcome of the FCC's rule change is that cable choice wins out over price. Soon, everyone who lives in an apartment building that had an exclusive cable contract will get more cable options, but every one of those options will be costlier. Somehow I doubt that the government cares about the increased cable costs for those poor minorities mentioned in the court documents.

It couldn't disagree with you more. We have a whole set of antitrust laws that go all the way back to the Sherman Act of 1890 built around the idea that impediments to open markets are bad for consumers. The law and its application are not on your side with this one.

Originally posted by hudson1:It couldn't disagree with you more. We have a whole set of antitrust laws that go all the way back to the Sherman Act of 1890 built around the idea that impediments to open markets are bad for consumers. The law and its application are not on your side with this one.

You are completely incorrect, and you obviously do not understand antitrust laws. If you're going to mention the Sherman Act, perhaps you should read it first. Antitrust laws are about oligopolies colluding to raise prices or monopolies taking advantage of their position to keep newcomers from competing. Antitrust laws are not about mutually agreeable contracts that exclude competing companies.

A cable company contracting with an apartment complex owner for an exclusive installation is not violating antitrust laws or any other federal laws. A similar situation would be Toyota making an exclusive deal with a pipeline inspection company to provide all their SUVs. These types of deals happen all the time. When I directed a VA medical lab, we had exclusive contracts with lab equipment vendors.

This FCC ruling is why a lot of rental contracts exclude areas outside the building as being for the exclusive use of the tenant (instead they are treated common areas) or they restrict the storing of anything in the balacony area due to safety concerns. So if the contract is appropriately worded, you probably don't have the right to install a dish. Of course, I would think twice before I lived in one of those places but I can also see having those conditions in place if I own the building.

Matthew Lasar / Matt writes for Ars Technica about media/technology history, intellectual property, the FCC, or the Internet in general. He teaches United States history and politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz.